Matrix Morpheus

That's like saying a king is an anarchist because he's not subject to a government.

And before the Magna Carta, you might have had a point with that comparison, haha, but I fear it's false equivalence in the sense that there's no real comparison between being self-appointed and being created.

The whole thing is nonsense anyway. God can't believe in Himself, He simply is.

Oh, "god," here we go.
Alright, I'll bite.
If we're to assume God is in fact "is," and is all-knowing, then God must know He exists, and since belief extends into knowledge, would therefore believe in Himself. I mean, if you're arguing from the religious point of view. Personally, I find the religious idea of an anthropomorphic god particularly distasteful.

I don't believe I exist; I know it. There's a qualitative difference. At any rate, there's good reason to think that theism and atheism are strictly for humans. God has no need for religion - religion is for us.
And of course, our tastes have precisely zero bearing on the truth, whatever it is.

They intersect one-way. You can believe without knowing.
You can't know without believing. A belief is an emotional acceptance of something. If you know something exists or is right or is XYZ, then you must also believe it. You cannot disbelieve what you know.

Fine. Then He believes in Himself. Since He is God, that means He believes in God. Therefore, He is not an atheist. Whether He is creator or creature has nothing to do with it.

I'd argue whether creator or creature (or both) have pretty much everything to do with it : You can't prove God or any quality thereof, therefore not believing in a higher being is what makes you atheist. If we are to assume God exists (in spite of our inability to prove Him), and that He refuses to take on faith the existence of something higher, it's functionally the same mechanic. But, like I said. That model relies on a non-omnipotent "god," and I don't really abide by the concept of faith. Whatever drives our existence probably does not think. Creating a creature is not enough to amount to "god." We will eventually create AI that is superior to us. Doesn't make us gods, in spite of creating a superior product. Now that I think about it, that being a given, kinda makes you wonder what constitutes a "god."

Immortality? Machines can theoretically have that. Not gods.
Creating things from existing matter? We already do that.
Creating things from nothing? Supposedly deep physics tells us the Universe
does in fact create matter seemingly from nothing, and borrows against itself when it does so. And now I feel depressed because I do not understand these very ornate concepts at their core, so I believe I will end this conversation feeling stupid now and return to my emo corner.

You just said I can't prove any quality of God, then you proceeded to argue according to your assumptions about what a hypothetical god must be like. That doesn't seem fair.
Anyway, there need not be an infinite chain of causes. If there is not, at the top of that chain the idea of a "higher power" is simply nonsense. The mistake is to think about God as if He were somehow a peer or near-peer of ours. There is no reason to assume this, and indeed I do not. I hold, according to the Christian tradition, that God is in an entirely distinct category such that it's foolish to talk about Him as you would a mere creature.
We return to the example of the state. At some point you reach a level where there is no higher political authority. The people at that level are not anarchists, they are the basis of whatever particular system they inhabit. Likewise, God is not an atheist. He is the very theos that theism points to. At His level you have reached the point where those labels have lost their relevance; you've gone off the edge of the map.

burrnedd

A narcissist doesn't believe in anyone who doesn't believe in him.